Deeper Levels

In The Mind of God, Paul Davies, also a physicist, but a believer (and winner of the million-dollar Templeton prize ‘for progress in religion’) concludes that ‘belief in God is largely a matter of taste, to be judged by its explanatory value rather than logical compulsion. Personally I feel more comfortable with a deeper level of explanation than the laws of physics. Whether the use of “God” for that deeper level is appropriate is, of course, a matter of debate.’ This, from the idea that explanatoriness is just a matter of taste, through the play on ‘deeper,’ to the insouciance about the meaning of ‘God,’ sounds to me like – well, a million-dollar muddle.

Same here. That ‘deeper’ is rich. Why are made-up ‘explanations’ considered deeper, more profound, more admirable than the other kind? And then, explanation is strange too – common, but strange. What explanation? What explanation? Why do people find it explanatory to say ‘God’ to questions like ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ or ‘why is there life?’ or ‘why is there Mind?’? Why is the word ‘God’ considered an explanation? Why doesn’t it sound like what it is – either a silly refusal to say ‘I don’t know’ or a dressed-up translation of ‘I don’t know’ or both. ‘God’ is not explanatory. If you say ‘who ate the last brownie?’ and the answer is ‘God’ do you feel as if your understanding has been increased?

Gotta go. The sun is about to set spectacularly over Puget Sound and I have to rush out to get the whole panorama (I can see it from here, but I like the sweeping view from The Wall). Who made the sun to set? God. Or not.

Related posts

5 Responses to “Deeper Levels”

OB “Why is the word ‘God’ considered an explanation? Why doesn’t it sound like what it is – either a silly refusal to say ‘I don’t know’ or a dressed-up translation of ‘I don’t know’ or both. ‘God’ is not explanatory.”

Exactly my thoughts – these people are effectively denying the distinction between the known and unknown, and are also denying the existance of the unknowable; the position is is effectively anti the pursuit of knowledge…

Not an explanation, but I think it has a lot to do with “meaning of life”. Many of these people seem to feel that without God, or something like him, waiting at the end, life just has no meaning. One damn thing after another for no good reason and they find that unbearable. “What’s the point of being good if I don’t get my pie in the sky?”

Religious believers demand that why is important – even if it is irrelevant (and it is)”

I am often confused about the distinction between “How?” and “Why?” questions. eg. how would the answers to the two questions:

“How does the sun shine?” and

“Why does the sun shine?” look different. Whichever way I asked the question I would expect the answer to look the same.

Sometimes “How?” and “Why?” seem virtually synonymous. At other times “Why?” seems meaningless, much like asking “What colour is Wednesday”. Just because a string of words can be strung together ti form an apparent question, it does not always follow that questions means anything.